Nuclear Terrorism: Hype, Risks and Reality-A Case of Pakistan

South Asian Studies A Research Journal of South Asian Studies Vol. 34, No. 2, July – December, 2019, pp. 383 – 399 Nuclear Terrorism: Hype, Risks and Reality-A Case of Pakistan Rizwan Naseer Comset University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Musarat Amin Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. ABSTRACT The danger of nuclear terrorism has heightened significantly in the recent years largely because of the transnational terrorist networks and their unrelenting efforts to acquire nuclear technology. The menace of nuclear terrorism is alarming and should be calculated as credible source of emerging trends in terrorism. No incident of nuclear terrorism happened yet but terrorist groups are struggling to steal fissile materials, nuclear technology or insiders‟ support to either procure a crude weapon or steal one. International community is concerned with such foreseeable scenario. This research attempts to make a realistic calculation of the hazards of nuclear terrorism. First part of the paper underlines hype of nuclear terrorism and the risks it poses. It also signifies magnitude of reality involving nuclear terrorism. Second part of the paper underscores the response to international media that is frenzy about risk of nuclear terrorism in Pakistan. It also highlights the safety and security measures that Pakistan has adopted under the guidelines of IAEA and Nuclear Security Summits. This paper concludes with the argument that over the years Pakistan has remained relatively open about sharing information regarding how it is making advancements in its command and control system to ward off any risks of nuclear terrorism and has been successful in achieving better levels of security. Key words: Nuclear Terrorism, Command and Control, Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Security, Pakistan and Nuclear Security Summit Introduction “Nuclear Terrorism is one of the most serious threats of our time. Even one such attack could inflict mass casualties and create immense suffering and unwanted change in the world forever. This prospect should compel all of us to act to prevent such a catastrophe” (Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General 2007-2016). The intellectuals involved in the study of political violence have been facing trouble for so long in finding an accurate functional definition of terrorism. In simple terms it is described as “the frequent use of politically driven violence with coercive determination by non-state actors affecting more than one state” (Badey, 1998). One noteworthy assessment is that if not from all then at least from some international definitions of terrorism the immediate interaction between the states has been excluded. Terrorism thus, does not include direct relations of the states but rather it‟s the act of non-state violent actors. Though the threats emanating A Research Journal of South Asian Studies 383 Rizwan Naseer & Musarat Amin from other states regarding the usage of nuclear weapons might induce fear but they generally are not supposed to suggest what is usually labelled as the term „nuclear terrorism‟ (Badey, 1998). The term Nuclear Terrorism can be defined in various ways. It refers to an act of terrorism in which individuals belonging to a terrorist organization carry out an attack using a nuclear device. The most frightening scenario is the acquisition of nuclear weapon by transnational terrorists either by stealing or purchasing it from black market. An accidental explosion or an act of nuclear terrorism might kill 100,000 people or more. The terrorists who are determined to carry out suicide attacks, would not need aircraft or missiles to deliver the weapon, in fact it could be transported by truck or a boat. According to a study of United States‟ government in 1977, it is quite possible for a small group of people (rogue elements) to design and build a basic nuclear weapon by using mere modest mechanical facilities, if they acquire enough fissile material. Fissile material might be under not so stringent security controls as compared to the nuclear devices (Badey, 1998). Following chart reflects that non-state actors pose serious threat of nuclear terrorism to international peace and stability. Threats to International Peace & Stability State Actors Non State Actors Nuclear Weapons Vying to Acquire Nukes Rational Actors Terrorize nations They pose threat of Nuclear War They pose threat of Nuclear Terrorism Can be countered through NPT Through Nuclear Safety and Security Regime/cooperation among states 384 A Research Journal of South Asian Studies Nuclear Terrorism: Hype, Risks and Reality-A Case of Pakistan Terrorist groups seeking nuclear weapons One should also plainly differentiate between the attainment of the nuclear weapons potentially and the actual use of nuclear weapons by state actors, and side by side the procurement and eventually the use of such weapons by the non-state actors. It is vital to understand that the first does not necessarily lead to the latter. The threat of nuclear weapons by terrorist organizations invokes concrete measures by whole international community (Thomas.J, 2001). Some of the western scholars opine that rogue states may have the potential to engage in nuclear related trade. They also fear that states like Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Sudan that desire to acquire nuclear weapons, would invest millions of dollars in research and development of a nuclear arsenal; only to auction off or transfer them in favor of non-state entities, while being absolutely conscious of the fact that they‟ll be held accountable for the actions of their prospective customers. The conundrum regarding the procurement and employment of nuclear weapons by sovereign states differs radically from the question of acquirement and usage of nuclear arsenals by non-state entities (Badey, 1998). Aggrandizing of the nuclear security can prevent any such chances of nuclear terrorism. When defining nuclear security, one might say that it is linked to the defensive measures taken to prevent a non-state, malevolent actor from stealing nuclear weapons or sabotaging a nuclear facility. The concept of nuclear terrorism is not new however it can be traced back to the beginning of the atomic era. The apprehensions regarding the loose nukes gradually amplified following the fall of Soviet Union due to the deficient security of its nuclear facilities. Over the last decade, given the experience of the international community with the threat of terrorism there is an enticement of considering all irregular warfare as stereotypical which involves different types of attacks like using car bombs, small arms, and improvised explosive devices which might be generally correct. However, the reality is that the dynamics have evolved and some transnational terrorist groups would be eager to acquire nuclear weapons to wreak havoc (Mattox, Nuclear Terrorism: The „Other‟ Extreme of Irregular Warfare, 2010). Terrorist groups and their capabilities Harvard University published a report „Project on Managing the Atom’, it was definite from the report that it seems quite difficult for a terrorist organization to carry out a nuclear attack, but the fact cannot be ignored that a well-organized and expert terrorist group having the significant fissile materials can probably transport, construct and detonate a crude bomb which is capable to destroy the heart of any main city. However, several paths can be followed for the acquisition of nuclear weapons (Mondogal, 2016). One way may involve selling the weapons to the violent non-state actors stealing by the rogue states to use them against their rivals or stealing the nuclear weapons from a state‟s nuclear arsenal. Another A Research Journal of South Asian Studies 385 Rizwan Naseer & Musarat Amin possibility is the transference of nuclear technology and knowledge to the terrorist groups by the nuclear scientists through black market. United Kingdom‟s Prime Minister Tony Blair after the disastrous terrorist attacks on 9/11 stated that the single restriction faced by Al Qaeda in gaining and using a nuclear weapon is technical and practical, not moral or political barrier (HOUSE, 2001). A question arises that what might be the possible paths through which a terrorist group may perhaps attain a nuclear weapon? ( Rolf Mowatt- Larssen & Graham Allison, 2010). As terrorist groups have their transnational presence and vivacious networks, the three comprehensive pathways may include; 1. Transference of nuclear technology/weapons 2. Leakage of nuclear secrets 3. Indigenous production of nuclear technology (Mondogal, 2016). Transfer of the nuclear weapons This pathway includes the thoughtful handing over and sale of nuclear weapon from a state to the violent non-state actors. The tragic incident of 9/11 was not thought of by security optimists but Al-Qaeda managed to wreak havoc in the heart of New York city. After the incident of 9/11, the National Strategy of President George W. Bush, to fight against the Weapons of Mass Destruction stated, “the probable forthcoming connections amid the terrorist groups and the states sponsoring terrorism are predominantly hazardous and require significant attention” (US Department of the State, 2006). The link between terrorism and proliferation was the main motivation underlying the advancement of preemptive doctrine that Bush wanted to smash terrorist networks before they were too strong to be defeated. In the West Point speech by George Bush, he stated, “The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread

Load more